DJS Solutions Engineering Pte Ltd v AGR 1 Ltd: Service Out of Jurisdiction & Indemnity Claim

In DJS Solutions Engineering Pte Ltd v AGR 1 Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by AGR 1 Limited against the decision to grant DJS Solutions Engineering Pte Ltd leave to serve a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim out of jurisdiction and a default judgment obtained by DJS Solutions Engineering Pte Ltd. The claim concerned an indemnity for liabilities and expenses incurred by DJS Solutions Engineering Pte Ltd in assisting AGR 1 Limited's greenhouse project in Malaysia. The court, presided over by Justice Vincent Hoong, allowed the appeal, setting aside the leave order and default judgment, finding that Malaysia was the more appropriate forum for the trial.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses service out of jurisdiction in an indemnity claim. Appeal allowed, setting aside leave order and default judgment.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
DJS Solutions Engineering Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
AGR 1 LimitedDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vincent HoongJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh Teck Beng GlenWMH Law Corporation
Sean Francois La’BrooySelvam LLP
Lim Jonathan Wei-RenSelvam LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff sought indemnity from the defendant for liabilities incurred assisting in the defendant's greenhouse project in Malaysia.
  2. Plaintiff claimed an agreement existed where the defendant would cover expenses with a 7% service fee.
  3. Defendant denied any contract existed, claiming expenses were incurred on the plaintiff's own account.
  4. DJS Malaysia, a subsidiary of the plaintiff, entered into leases in Malaysia for land and residential property.
  5. Plaintiff claimed its Singapore head office funded the work related to the project.
  6. DJS Malaysia assigned its claims against the defendant to the plaintiff.
  7. The key witnesses were Mr. Harmer, director of the plaintiff, and Mr. Harrison, director of the defendant.

5. Formal Citations

  1. DJS Solutions Engineering Pte Ltd v AGR 1 Ltd, Suit No 65 of 2020 – Registrar’s Appeal No 224 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 19

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Communications between Mr. Harmer and Mr. Harrison began regarding the Project.
WhatsApp call between Mr. Harrison, Mr. Harmer, Mr. Rivera, and Mr. Currie regarding the Project.
AGRM incorporated in Malaysia.
Defendant paid USD 21,750 to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff emailed the defendant requesting payment of MYR 212,437.37.
Mr. Harrison replied to deny that the defendant owed the said amounts.
Plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the defendant to ask for payment of MYR 656,997.36.
Mr. Harrison replied via email to state that the defendant rejected all claims.
DJS Malaysia executed a deed to assign its claims against the defendant to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff commenced Suit No 65 of 2020 against the defendant.
Plaintiff granted leave to serve the Writ and SOC on the defendant outside of jurisdiction in Hong Kong.
Plaintiff obtained Default Judgment against the defendant.
Assistant registrar dismissed the defendant’s application in SUM 2870.
Defendant filed the present RA 224 against the assistant registrar’s decision.
Court granted leave for the defendant to file a further affidavit by Mr. Harrison.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Service Out of Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that Singapore was not the proper forum for the trial, and thus the leave order for service out of jurisdiction was set aside.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 4 SLR 500
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that there was a serious question to be tried as to whether the alleged contract existed.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Unjust Enrichment
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no serious issue to be tried regarding the unjust enrichment claim because the plaintiff failed to point to any specific unjust factor underlying its claim.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 3 SLR 801
  4. Proper Forum
    • Outcome: The court determined that Malaysia was the more appropriate forum for the trial, considering the relevant events, transactions, and personal connections of the parties.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] 1 SLR 391
      • [2019] 2 SLR 372

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Indemnity
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Agency
  • Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Agriculture

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 500SingaporeCited for the three requirements for valid service out of jurisdiction.
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 1 SLR 391SingaporeCited for factors to consider when determining the proper forum for a trial.
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan JitendraUnknownYes[2019] 2 SLR 372SingaporeCited regarding the balancing of competing interests when identifying the proper forum.
Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 801SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no freestanding claim in unjust enrichment without a recognized unjust factor.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and othersUnknownYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 428SingaporeCited regarding the ease of transporting documents and addressing expenses with costs orders.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
O 11 r 1(d)(i) of the Rules of CourtSingapore
O 11 r 1(d)(ii) of the Rules of CourtSingapore
O 11 r 1(o) of the Rules of CourtSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Service out of jurisdiction
  • Indemnity
  • Greenhouse project
  • Leave Order
  • Default Judgment
  • Proper forum
  • Alleged Contract
  • Alleged Indemnification Term
  • Service Fee
  • Deed of Assignment

15.2 Keywords

  • Service out of jurisdiction
  • Indemnity claim
  • Singapore High Court
  • Contract dispute
  • Forum non conveniens

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Service out of jurisdiction90
Civil Practice75
Contract Law60
Judgments and Orders60
Agency Law50
Unjust Enrichment40
Estoppel30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Agency Law
  • Service Out of Jurisdiction
  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Indemnity